VICTORY: HSUS Wins Litigation for Access to Lab Records
July 6, 2009
Abstract & Commentary: After eight years of dragging its heels, the USDA has finally agreed to begin complying with the federal law Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). This victory for transparency in government did not come about through voluntary change on part of the government or the vivisection industry. It was only made possible due to the diligence and litigation efforts of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The below articles discuss this change in USDA policy. The first article also features a quote from notorious primate vivisector David Jentsch, stating that this change may allow activists to further harass scientists and make “fallacious claims.”
It is unclear how the public’s access to these documents, which simply shed light on the operations of vivisection labs in the United States, will enable people to make fallacious claims and harass scientists. Quite the opposite; access to facility reports and institutional documents will help clarify and elucidate what is actually happening in labs. It provides an unbiased record and account for activists to show the public what is happening behind locked doors. In all likelihood, what Jentsch really fears is a truly well-informed populace. He is worried about the backlash and outrage that would occur when people become aware of the undeniable cruelty perpetrated on animals in labs, including his own, on a daily basis.
Animal use details to go online
Posted by Jef Akst, The Scientist, July 6, 2009
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) must post annual reports from animal research facilities that document the levels of pain and distress experienced by animals in experimental procedures, according to a court settlement last week (July 1) of a lawsuit between the USDA and the Humane Society.
“We have been taking a variety of steps to increase transparency on a number of issues, [and] the agreement we reached with the Human Society is consistent with that,” said USDA spokesperson Andrea McNally.
According to the Humane Society, the USDA stopped posting the annual reports, required by the Animal Welfare Act, around the end of 2001. When the USDA failed to provide copies of the reports requested by the Humane Society (in the form of Freedom of Information Act requests), the Humane Society filed charges in 2005. Since then, the USDA has been posting some of the reports, but the settlement makes the action mandatory. Under the settlement agreement, the USDA must also make clear which institutions have failed to submit them. In addition, the USDA must continue to look for several documents that are still missing, and report back to the Humane Society with the results of the search. “It became very clear that there isn’t a very good system for keeping track of these documents,” said Kathleen Conlee, Director of Program Management for Animal Research Issues of the Humane Society. “We’re hoping that as a result of this suit, they [will develop] a better system.”
The “open policy” regarding the oversight of animal laboratories enforced by this settlement “will help educate the public and advance human health research,” Thomas Rowell, director of the New Iberia Research Center of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, wrote in an email to The Scientist. (Earlier this year, that facility was cited for Animal Welfare Act violations in regard to its care of primates.) But David Jentsch, a neuropsychopharmacologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who organized a pro-research rally in April after being targeted by animal rights activists, warned that such information is not always used to honestly inform the public. “I think one’s reaction has to fit the complexity of the issue,” Jentsch said. “I’m all in favor of being as transparent as possible, and encouraging the USDA to do that as well, [but this information is often used] for making fallacious claims and harassing scientists.”
Settlement to require animal labs to post data
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press, July 2, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) – Animal research facilities will be required to disclosee more information online about their experiments under a court settlement signed Wednesday by the Humane Society of the United States and the Agriculture Department.
According to the Humane Society, the settlement will require the Agriculture Department to post annual reports from those facilities, including what they call “pain and distress information,” on its Web site. The two parties settled in a lawsuit filed by the advocacy group four years ago after the group were unable to obtain information they requested.
The settlement will now be submitted to the federal district court for the District of Columbia for final approval.
“While it became apparent during the suit that the USDA might be acting to shield animal research facilities from public scrutiny, we are pleased that the settlement will ensure public access to animal research information, and shed light on whether USDA is doing its job,” said Kathleen Conlee of the Humane Society.
The Bush administration stopped posting some animal testing information in 2002, according to the group, and then began posting the annual reports in 2005 in response to the lawsuit. Conlee said the court-approved settlement is important so future administrations don’t further abuse the policy.
Caleb Weaver, a spokesman for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, confirmed the settlement.
The Animal Welfare Act, signed into law in 1966 and enforced by USDA, governs the care and handling of most warm-blooded animals at registered research facilities and licensed animal dealer facilities around the country. Birds, mice and rats bred for research are exempt from the law.
A 1970 amendment to the law requires those facilities to submit annual reports on its activities. According to the Humane Society, these reports should include information on how many and what kind of animals are used in research, whether pain relief was used and a justification if such relief was not provided.
The group’s 2005 lawsuit charged that the Department of Agriculture violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them access to reports and redacting large amounts of information in reports they did provide.
